Timothy Kincaid and Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin have done a sterling job of exposing Insure.com for using research from the notorious anti-gay propagandist Paul Cameron.
The controversy started when Insure.com, an online provider of insurance advice, published an article entitled Top five ways to kill yourself and get away with it, of which the number one recommendation for certain self-destruction was “Being gay.” Author Joe White claimed that eight to 20 years’ reduction in life span was a “conservative estimate.”
It was not the first time White had made the claim. An earlier article was boldly named Gay men die 20 years younger. In support of his argument, he cited Hogg’s much-misused Vancouver study and the long-since-debunked, pseudo-scientific “research” of Paul Cameron.
Kincaid persevered with Insurance.com, notifying them of Cameron’s incredibly poor reputation and providing them with sound evidence to discredit his findings. Insure.com stood by what they published, and White continued to deny his article was anti-gay.
Box Turtle Bulletin has now presented Insure.com with the “Certified Cameronite award, for citing the discredited research of holocaust revisionist Paul Cameron.” Burroway summarizes:
[The] only people who rely on Cameron anymore are those who occupy the most radical fringes of anti-gay extremists. Insure.com, CEO Robert Bland, and author Joseph White are now officially in their company.
Hear, hear.
Moderator Note: Mr. Bland has pasted this same comment in several places on other blogs. It is not new content for this discussion. We are leaving it up in this particular case to preserve the pattern for future reference.
—
Dave Rattigan is lying and the writers at Box Turtle bulletin (where are their resumes, anyway?) have shown nothing to discredit or refute the accuracy of any of our 3,000 articles about insurance; they seem to simply want to harm us and embarrass me personally ad hominem. I’m an easy target because our company is publicly-held.
In 2005, Dr. Paul Cameron, president of the Colorado-based Family Research Institute, published a study in Psychological Reports that confirmed a 20-year life expectancy gap for actively gay men. Researchers performed the study by examining gay obituaries and comparing them with data from the Center for Disease Control. Both data sets put the average age of death for gay men about 20 years younger than average.
Immediately, critics objected to this study, claiming that only gay men who had died were included, which would skew the results toward shorter life expectancy. The numbers would only work out, according to critics, if every gay man died of AIDS, which is obviously a faulty premise.
Then, in early 2007, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron reported at the Eastern Psychological Association convention that married gays and lesbians lived about 24 fewer years than their married heterosexual counterparts. This time, the Camerons extracted official data from Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002. Married heterosexual men died in Denmark die at a median age of 74, while 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.
The Drs. Cameron also looked at official data from Norway and re-confirmed that their data was gleaned from official census bureau data of both counties.
Eerily, the 2007 Cameron findings of official Scandinavian gay mortality statistics closely matched that of their earlier 2005 research derived from U.S. obituaries.
Canadian Doctor Anarag Markanday, who recently testified in a February 2008 court case involving HIV said this: “It’s like a death sentence… while we can keep the virus suppressed, we are going to run out of options.” Once diagnosed with HIV, the average lifespan of such a person is 8 to 10 years he testified.
None of this is being made up by Insure.com and none of this is Insure.com’s research. But it does seem to underscore that more research is needed and perhaps less personal attacks.
Mr. Bland, it’s obvious you don’t get it. Cameron’s results are what you want to see so you’re prepared to defend it to the death no matter how thoroughly both the man and his “research” has been discredited. I’m just glad all this came out so I know to avoid your company.
Then, in early 2007, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron reported at the Eastern Psychological Association convention…
No. They didn’t. He put up a poster in a hallway at the convention and proceeded to try and talk to anyone who would listen to him. Had you merely taken the slightest measlyist let’s-do-the-least-we-can effort to verify what Cameron actually did at that conference you’d have found that out. What Jim Burroway did, and what you are apparently utterly unwilling to do, is fact check him.
Burroway actualy contacted the Eastern Psychological Association and asked them for a response to Cameron’s claim that he “presented” his “paper” at their convention last March. He got a response back. You can easily find their response on the Box Turtle Bulletin website. The bottom line is, Cameron’s claim that he presented a “report” at that convention is, like everything else he’s ever claimed about his work, a bit of brazen mendacity. He might as well have waved a poster about UFOs around the hallways there, and claimed later that he gave a “report” about UFOs at the Eastern Psychological Association convention. Would you have accepted that claim too? Would you have accepted it if he “reported” that gay people were willingly spreading alien death viruses from outer space? Because he might just as well have said that too. And maybe you’d have put that up on your web site too.
Personal Attacks? You mean…like painting an utterly false picture of the lives of gay people as brief, barren and squalid? Personal Attacks? Like telling anyone who will listen that gay people are disease ridden child molesting threats to everyone around them? That kind of personal attack? You don’t even have to look hard to see how Cameron is selling a pack of filthy lies about innocent people. You just have to look. Well…and you have to want to look. And that’s the problem isn’t it Bland? Not that you can’t look, not that you don’t have enough time to look, but that you’d rather not. You can always claim that you don’t hate gay people, when it’s someone else doing the hatemongering and you’re just passing it along.
It’s not even close with Cameron. There is no mistaking him for what he is. All you have to do is look. People have been asking you to look. And all we get back now is more Cameron BS. It’s not a personal attack on you to say, simply, after all, that you don’t particularly mind trafficking in cheap, filthy lies about gay people. You’ve been telling us that yourself for days now.
I’ve left it up since this is your first comment here Mr. Bland, but we don’t really allow cut-and-past comments from other blogs. You are welcome to participate, but your responses should be part of the dialog here and not simply canned statements used elsewhere.
I am curious as to why the CEO of a large concern would think that repeating an uninformed defense — in this case one which simply ignores the facts — is somehow an appropriate response to having posted such odious nonsense in the first place. Is it your intention to just paste this same response wherever you find mention of the story?
When you post offensive and discredited information from someone (Dr. Paul Cameron) who is known more for his bizarre, unscientific and biased work than for anything else, you should not attribute the outcry to you being an “easy target.” You are not a victim here, at least not of anything more than stubborn bigotry, and that’s a conclusion which becomes less avoidable each day you ignore clear and factual rebukes.
“Canadian Doctor Anarag Markanday, who recently testified in a February 2008 court case involving HIV said this:
“It’s like a death sentence… while we can keep the virus suppressed, we are going to run out of options.” Once diagnosed with HIV, the average lifespan of such a person is 8 to 10 years.
Mr. Bland is referring to the Owen Antoine trial in St. Thomas Ontario where Dr. Markanday testified. That is fact.
I’d suggest Mr. Bland read up on what else was said in the trial and why.
This might be a reasonable place to start.
https://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/2008/02/canada-expert-doctor-defends-his.html
Speaking of qualifications, Mr Bland… this would be you, right?
Recently re-elected Chairman of the Board of the Illinois Right to Life Committee, which links to all the usual suspects — including Paul Cameron’s Family Reseach Institute — and makes all the usual false claims about gay men and women.
Good luck with any “I have no agenda” marketing efforts.
I don’t think Mr. Bland is willing to discuss this, but the scientific and medical community all dispute Cameron’s research. He comes in with a bias, and he attempts to prove his viewpoint with skewered research. A legitimate company would not accept problematic research.
The problem is that you tie being gay with mortality rates. Homosexuality is an ammoral characteristic with no bearing on health. Yes, there are gay people with HIV, addictions, etc. (which is true of any group of people), but it is not inherent that these are elements that are necessarily connected with being gay. Yet, by using Cameron’s research, you are saying these are automatically connected–that these are inherent to being gay. Any simple research of Cameron will also reveal many odd things that are problematic for a researcher.
Now, if you stated the number of gay people that had HIV, that would be a legitimate stat, as long as you do not say that being gay means someone will get HIV. As a gay man, I have met maybe only three people who openly have HIV. I have been out for over half my life, and I know almost no one who has the disease. I do not live in a urban setting (suburban), and I would think that would be more of a bearing on the issue than being gay. Many of us are monogamous, productive, sober people, and to tie us all into stats that are faulty is wrong. An legit insurance company should know how to critically evaluate stats and studies, but the fact that you hold on to faulty research as if your life depended on it is bad. That does not reflect well on your business.
Southern Poverty Law Center has more to say about P. Cameron and his Family Research Institute:
Mr. Bland, this might prove rather embarrassing for you. I suggest you might need to find a good P.R. firm. Seriously. I wouldn’t look in the yellow pages either.
Maybe we’ve been looking at this all wrong. It would seem that Mr. Bland is just playing by “Insurance Company Rules.”
A letter from Robert Bland to Reason Magazine in 2002 concerning sexual abuse by Catholic priests may help illuminate his mindset and agenda. This sentence jumped out as a smoking gun (emphasis mine):
This would seem to tell us most of what we need to know about Mr. Bland.
The full letter can be found here. It’s near the bottom of the page. (I doubt that it could be from a different Robert Bland since his location is listed as Darien, IL, the same as Insure.com’s mailing address.)
Weird, so I sent an email to Mr. Bland explaining why his comments were problematic. The response was quite arrogant (and he seems very frazzled by the whole discussion). Here is the weird thing–he sent me a second email that seems to be for Tim from here. The email was one of the nastiest commentaries. So Tim K., if you want the email, let me know.
Insure.com has no political agenda.
Without us defending the Cameron’s research (we’re not remotely qualified to do so, won’t and never have), you should know that one of his sharpest critics, Dr. Morten Frisch or Denmark, has himself conducted baseline research in 2003 on homosexual mortality and published this result:
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Jun 1;157 (11):966-72 12777359 (P,S,E,B) Cited:1 Cancer in a population-based cohort of men and women in registered homosexual partnerships. [My paper] Morten Frisch, Else Smith, Andrew Grulich, Christoffer Johansen Department of Epidemiology Research, Danish Epidemiology Science Center, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark. mfr@ssi.dk Cancer patterns among broad populations of homosexual men and women have not been studied systematically. The authors followed 1,614 women and 3,391 men in Denmark for cancer from their first registration for marriage-like homosexual partnership between 1989 and 1997. Ratios of observed to expected cancers measured relative risk. Women in homosexual partnerships had cancer risks similar to those of Danish women in general (overall relative risk (RR) = 0.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.6, 1.4), but only one woman developed cervical carcinoma in situ versus 5.8 women expected (RR = 0.2, 95% CI: 0.0, 0.97). Overall, men in homosexual partnerships were at elevated cancer risk (RR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.8, 2.5), due mainly to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma (RR = 136, 95% CI: 96, 186) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (RR = 15.1, 95% CI: 10.4, 21.4). Anal squamous carcinoma also occurred in excess (RR = 31.2, 95% CI: 8.4, 79.8). https://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:12777359
In fact, I’m very open to “changing my mind” on this issue, but wonder what part of this article is my opinion put forth? You’ve already called my posts “unthinking” but you won’t even identify yourself to me or tell me what posts you are even talking about.
Again, we’re also working on re-researching this topic and expect this to take up to 3-4 more weeks because of recent feedback we’ve received. We think this issue is important to the life insurance industry and to consumers in general. We also think that HIV-positive people are being unfairly denied life insurance, which will have more information in the expanded article that’s coming.
Robert, the study you mention here is not in issue really. The issue is the use of stats by Cameron. Also, the fact that you tend to suggest in the articles that somehow there are inherent elements to being gay. The study here is interesting, and I think we have all seen it, but here is where critical evaluation comes in.
That study is for Denmark. To use this as a accurate depiction of US cancer rates is problematic. Also, it is for gay men and women in marriage-like situations (which is not clear what that means). Now, taking a study from one country and applying it to another is always a problem. For example, comparing violence and gun laws from England to our situation is very faulty. There are a number of situations that could explain variables. I also find it funny that you jump from Cameron to some stats in Europe. That suggests there is a problem with the number of legit studies. Anytime someone uses studies from another country, red flags appear–it suggests that they are using anything to prove their point.
Second, this study does not suggest life span. It suggests cancer rates, but the original articles were talking about life span. Yet, you automatically say in your intro that it is a mortality study–that is not what the study says.
Third, it plainly states that the cancer risk is largely based on HIV, which is not solely a characteristic of gay men. It suggests nothing about an inherent cancer risk in gay men. Instead, it shows that people with HIV tend to have a higher cancer risk (not a surprise). It also suggests that lesbians are pretty average in terms of cancer risk.
Fourth, there is a serious question as to who the subjects were and how they were determined for the study. Were they from the general gay population? Urban populations? Were people with cancers the focus from the beginning, or were a random group of gay people picked? Could it be that non-partnered gay people have less cancer risk? Also, there is a possibility that some people may have registered a partnership because they had cancer or illness–that would affect the outcome.
No one has a problem with saying that gay men may have an elevated cancer risk or have more chance at HIV. What is problematic is that you seem to suggest that it is the gayness that is causing shorter lifespans or cancer. What is also a problem is that you take discredited researchers for your studies because they present a certain viewpoint. The articles in question are the ones about how to shorten your life with being gay as one of them and the article Gay Men Die Young found at your website. https://www.insure.com/articles/lifeinsurance/gay-men-die-young.html
Mr. Bland, you can continue to claim your company is “re-researching” but your actions demonstrate that you have little intention of distancing your company from Paul Cameron’s discredited research. Why a businessman such as yourself would want to indirectly defend Paul Cameron is beyond me. You say you are open to, as you put it, “changing your mind”, well the evidence indicates otherwise. Your 7/20/08 @ 2:14 pm post in particular shows that you continue to act as if HIV infection is a defining characteristic of gays. Well just to let you know, it is precisely this type of generalization that calls Paul Cameron’s credibility into question. And it is this type of generalization that others have pointed out to you and asked your company to stop supporting (albeit indirectly) in the articles on your company’s website. No one is asking you to ignore the health issues in the gay community nor to turn a blind eye to the risk factors shown in legitimate studies; what people are asking you and your company to do is to stop promoting biased and false notions that are used to defame and dehumanize members of the gay community.
For what it’s worth…
From Insure.com’s Corporate Profile page:
“Insure.com is dedicated to providing impartial insurance information to consumers.”
From their Management Team page; Robert S. Bland, CLU Chairman and Founder:
“Mr. Bland currently serves as chairman, president and CEO of Insure.com. Mr. Bland is active in the company on a full time basis, providing vision and strategic leadership to the Company as it accelerates its business and its consumer branding efforts.”
And: “Mr. Bland currently serves on the board of directors at the Illinois Right to Life Committee.”
From the IRLC site: “Bob Bland was re-elected as Chairman of the Board. May 22, 2008“
Which, for an anti-abortion site, is surprisingly virulently anti-gay. Some of the links on this page, under Marriage & Family (which is part of the site and can be accessed from the main page), include:
It goes on and on and on from there. It’s absolutely disgusting. So it’s not surprising that he would hold views such as this, from the Reason Magazine letter (bold mine):
Nor then, is it surprising that he has expressed little more than cursory PR concern over the grossly unethical research practices of the Camerons – he already all but equates same-gender attraction with the desire to rape kids. And if he’s at all familiar with the IRLC website, and approves of it’s content, then he’s bought into and is an active promoter of the whole “homosexual agenda” conspiracy theory.
PW, good post.
One thing that is an issue also is that there is an underlying assumption in the original articles that being gay is something that one can change (i.e. if you stop being gay, you will reduce this mortality risk). However, as we know on this website, you don’t just stop being gay. So what is the point of even bringing it up? Would they put up being African-American? No, even though African-Americans do have some elevated health risk issues–higher blood pressure, diabetes, etc. So why the double-standard? Because I think there is an underlying idea that being gay is something one can change.
I think the understanding (if we can call it that) we’re dealing with can best illustrated with this comment by Bland over at BTB.
It’s well established in the medical literature that significant differences between Black mortality vs. white in America exist. It’s also true that no life insurance company today will dare charge for this disparity because of political correctness or state regulations specific to this issue, but that does not change this sad scientific fact.
Frankly, this shows a dreadful understanding of how risk is calculated.
According to Mr Bland’s logic, someone like — oh, take this as just an example — one of the two presidentail candidates should be paying a “skin color” premium for his life insurance. He’s black, QED he should pay more. The “facts” say so.
It doesn’t matter that he’s well educated, financially comfortable and therefore doesn’t live in a dangerous neighbourhood and therefore can afford health insurance … things that actually do make the difference between average black and average white mortality rates.
No, let’s just be simplistic and tick the “Colored” box. Far be it for me to want to be accused of political correctness.
According to this logic, being black is reason enough to think someone will drop dead 8 years before their white neighbour. Same street, same job, same income, same suburban lifestyle… but, oh, there’s that
unfortunatelydifferent skin color we must not overlook.At the end of the day we’re dealing with an insurance salesman (CLU), not an actuary. We can dispute all studies in the World, show why Paul Cameron is incorrect, show why I’m at no elevated risk etc etc etc and it won’t make a bee’s dick worth of difference.
If somebody does not understand why “black” says nothing per se about the life risks associated with an individual, what hope do we have with “gay”?
(I’m actually trying to imagine a insurance company rep looking Obama in the eye and saying “We’d like to charge you a premium ’cause you’re black, but political correctness and/or state regulations prevent us.” Beyond silly.)
Mr. Bland’s defense of Cameron would be understandable if he were a serious scientist. But really, is there even a single professional organization that takes Cameron seriously? It seems that he’s the Pons and Fleischmann of the psychiatric world.
You know, Mr. Bland… you could have avoided this entire embarrassment to your company by following three very simple steps:
1. Temporarily remove the offensive/controversial article in question to demonstrate your commitment to accuracy;
2. While the article is offline, take whatever time is necessary to research its claims;
3. After your research is complete, either repost the story with more accurate scientific evidence that supports the article’s basic claims, or announce that your research has shown that the article’s claims were faulty, then permanently shelve the story.
I don’t even work in PR, and I could have told you that this is how you could have avoided the disaster you have on your hands right now.
Since this story makes scientific claims and is hosted by your company’s website, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON YOUR COMPANY TO PROVE THE CLAIMS ARE TRUE, NOT THE CONSUMER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THE CLAIMS ARE FALSE. This is especially true when consumers provide reams of solid evidence to support their position. You are not dealing with stupid people here.
Your aggressively defensive posture INHERENTLY proves that you are agenda-driven. To demonstrate you don’t have one, you work WITH consumers, not argue against them everywhere they raise objections. You had a rare and unique opportunity to build a positive relationship (and by doing so, expand your business) with an important subset of insurance consumers, and you’ve failed miserably.
Your actions are now harming your company’s reputation, and trust me, it will affect Insure.com’s bottom line. I listen to talk radio a lot, and I’ve heard your company’s ads repeatedly. But I now know I will never use Insure.com’s services. And I will also encourage everyone I know to avoid using your company… and my circle of contacts includes many, many heterosexuals.
Now THAT is a verifiable fact.
Since he and his company were given a generous six weeks to investigate and respond before Timothy released the story (about 5 weeks more than any regular media outlet would have given them), I can’t help but assume this is some sort of activist stand on Bland’s part. Perhaps he really thinks he is dealing a negative blow against GLBTs with this, but is either too uninformed or just too stubborn to realize how bad he is making himself and Insure.com look.
One thing seems likely, Bland’s response appears co-written by Cameron or an associate. And as grantdale pointed out, Cameron’s organization has a common link with Bland through the Illinois Right to Life Committee (along with Peter LaBarbera). This thing is beginning to really smell from the head down.
I think we all need to inform people about Insure.com’s agenda-driven faults.